> When you add-up the realities of manufacturing (which in some cases might include mining), transportation, construction, deployment, operations and maintenance, not one system has yet surfaced that can conclusively operate beyond the lab or, at best, a small test area (like a small farm patch).

In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42425985 I corrected you the last time you made this false claim, providing verifiable calculations on lime burning, the simplest system that can conclusively operate beyond the lab, though possibly not the cheapest. So I'm surprised to see you repeating the same false claim again in a different thread.

> I have posted the math here on HN in detail in the past.

Links to the math you've posted previously to HN (rather than bare assertions that it exists) would be appreciated. If it's correct, it will inform others; if it's incorrect, the correction will inform you.

> The idea of using your EV as a battery simply will not work on multiple fronts. One of the most basic problems is that you'd age your battery prematurely by adding charge/discharge cycles.

Battery aging has cost, but grid-scale energy storage has value. It isn't sufficient to establish that the cost exists; you must establish that it exceeds the value provided. As we'll see below, the value is typically about five times the cost.

> The reality of the situation is that you need many times the storage that an EV is able to provide in order to deal with the unreliability of solar production.

Again, I'd like to see your calculations. The Tesla Model Y's LFP battery capacity is supposedly 60 kilowatt hours, and a house averages about a kilowatt, only a small fraction of which needs to be active at night, perhaps 250 watts. So I think an EV provides about 240 hours' worth of nighttime backup power, but only needs to provide about 18 hours' worth.

So, rather than needing many times the storage that an EV is able to provide, an EV is able to provide many times the storage you need.

LFP batteries are particularly good on the wear-and-tear front, lasting around 5000 cycles. The car costs US$50k, so if we junk the car when the battery wears out, each cycle costs about US$10, about 17 cents per kilowatt hour. This is enormously more expensive than solar energy but still cheaper than grid power in many places. In California it's about half the cost of grid power.

However, evidently replacing just the battery costs only US$10-15k: https://old.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/1cf1fkr/how_mu... which means each cycle only costs about US$2.50, 4 cents per kilowatt hour. So if otherwise you'd be paying 24 cents per kilowatt hour from the grid, the net value from draining your Tesla battery is about 20 cents per kilowatt hour.

Other companies such as BYD, which outsells Ford, Honda, and Tesla, have even cheaper batteries.

> we would have to triple the size of the array and have over 400 kWh of storage in place.

Where are you getting that? It sounds like you want weeks' worth of energy, not nights' worth. Batteries aren't a practical way to store weeks' worth of power. That doesn't make them useless.

> 55K hectares burned and no stop in sight. At 130 tons of CO2 per hectare, that's over seven million tons

Burning forests is, counterintuitively, carbon-neutral. The carbon in the forest had been removed from the atmosphere previously, and when the forest grows back, it will be removed from the atmosphere again. Only long-term changes in land use affect the greenhouse effect over more than a few years.